State of the Firefliesof the United States and Canada:
DISTRIBUTIONS, THREATS, AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Candace Fallon, Anna Walker, Sara Lewis, and Sarina Jepsen

State of the Firefliesof the United States and Canada:

Distributions, Threats, and Conservation Recommendations

Candace Fallon
Anna Walker
Sara Lewis
Sarina Jepsen

January 2022

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate ConservationiAcknowledgments

Contents

A report of this kind would not be possible without the contributions of many people. We are gratefulto all the researchers and community scientists whose data and extensive studies form the backboneof this work. We are especially grateful to the firefly experts and members of the IUCN SSC FireflySpecialist Group who gave so freely of their time and knowledge to this project: Lynn Faust, Joseph
Cicero, Christopher Heckscher, Ben Pfeiffer, and Cisteil Pérez Hernández. We also thank the many
photographers whose photos light up these pages. All copyrights remain with them.
Editing, layout, and design by Sara Morris.

Acronyms & Abbreviationsv

Executive Summary

1

Key Messages

1

1. Introduction

3

2. Firefly Distribution and Natural History

4

3. Assessment Methodology

6

Table 1. Summary of the Red List Status of Fireflies in the US and Canada.
Table 2. Number and Percentage of Firefly Species Threatened with Extinction in the US
and Canada.

4. Assessment Results

Photographs

88

We are grateful to the many photographers and designers for allowing us to use their wonderfulphotographs. The copyright for all photographs is retained by the creators. None of the photographs
may be reproduced without permission from the creator. Cover photographs: front—A firefly rests
on a blade of grass by day; back—fireflies flash above lupines in a wildflower meadow. (Photographs
by Radim Schreiber / fireflyexperience.org [front] and Mike Lewinski / Flickr [back].)

Extinction Risk and Conservation Status
Species Threatened with Extinction
Near Threatened Species
Least Concern Species
Data Deficient Species

8
8
9
9
9

Funding for this report was provided by the Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust, the Edward Gorey
Charitable Trust, the New-Land Foundation, Morningstar Foundation, the BAND Foundation, and
Xerces Society members.

Spatial Distribution of Firefly Species
Major Threats to Fireflies in the US and Canada
Existing Conservation Measures

10
11
12

5. Moving Forward: Taking Action for Fireflies

13

Recommended citation
Fallon, C., A. Walker, S. Lewis, and S. Jepsen. 2022. State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada:
Distributions, Threats, and Conservation Recommendations. 64 pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation. (Available online at https://xerces.org/publications/scientific-reports/
state-of-the-fireflies)

Applied Research
Surveys and Monitoring
Habitat Protection and Enhancement
Species Protections
Education and OutreachState of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

13
14
14
15
15

6. Further Reading

16

7. References

17

Appendix A: Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada with Corresponding
Red List Categories

20

Appendix B: Threatened & Near Threatened Species Profiles

32

Bicellonycha wickershamorum
Bicellonycha wickershamorum ssp. piceum
Bicellonycha wickershamorum ssp. wickershamorum
Lucidota luteicollis
Micronaspis floridana

ii

8

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

33
33
34
35
36

iii

Acronyms & Abbreviations
Photinus acuminatus
Photinus dimissus
Photinus knulli
Photuris bethaniensis
Photuris cinctipennis
Photuris flavicollis
Photuris forresti
Photuris mysticalampas
Photuris pensylvanica
Photuris pyralomima
Photuris salina
Photuris walldoxeyi
Pleotomodes needhami
Pyractomena ecostata
Pyractomena vexillaria

37
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

Appendix C: Species of Conservation Concern by US State and Canadian Province

iv

53

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

ACRONYM

MEANING

ALAN

Artificial light at night

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

CR

Critically Endangered

DD

Data DeficientEN

Endangered

EOO

Extent of Occurrence

ESA

Endangered Species Act

EW

Extinct in the Wild

EX

Extinct

GBIF

Global Biodiversity Information Facility

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

LC

Least Concern

NT

Near Threatened

SCAN

Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network

SGCN

Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SSC

Species Survival Commission

SWAPs

State Wildlife Action Plans

SWG

Statel Wildlife Grants

US ESA

U.S. Endangered Species Act

USFS

U.S. Forest Service

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VU

Vulnerable

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservationv

Executive SummarySouthwest synchronous fireflies (Phontinus knulli) light up the evening sky along a creek in Arizona. (Photo: Scott Cylwik.)

Anecdotal reports of firefly declines have been on the rise in recent decades. While population declines
have been documented for some species in Europe and Asia, the picture was not as clear in North
America. With the exception of a few localized studies, no effort had previously been made to assess theconservation status of the 171 described taxa in the United States and Canada. In order to understandthe extinction risk of fireflies in this region, researchers and firefly experts with the Xerces Society,Albuquerque BioPark, Tufts University, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Species Survival Commission (SSC) Firefly Specialist Group completed Red List assessments for 130
firefly species and two subspecies (77% of described taxa in this region to date). These are the first suchassessments conducted for fireflies globally.
This report summarizes the extinction risk andconservation status of these species, highlights major
threats, and offers an action plan for protecting
fireflies. It includes species profiles for all 18 taxa
threatened with extinction and two Near
Threatened species in the United States and Canada
and provides state- and province-specific species
lists and resources to promote conservation action.
It is our hope that this report can help guide future
firefly research and conservation programs in theregion, serve as a model for other regions, and act asa catalyst for conservationists, research scientists, andpolicy makers to develop strategic plans and prioritize
funding to ensure the wellbeing and longevity of ournative firefly fauna.

Key Messages» The US and Canada are home to 171 describedfirefly taxa representing 20 different genera.
» Recent IUCN Red List assessments of 132 of thesetaxa has revealed that 14% are threatened withextinction, 2% are categorized as Near Threatened(NT), and 32% are Least Concern (LC), though thismay be an underestimate of actual extinction risk,
since over half (53%) of the species assessed lackthe information needed to evaluate their extinction
risk and are categorized as Data Deficient (DD).
Assuming that DD species are threatened at thesame proportion as other assessed species, it isreasonable to expect that many of these species
will be categorized as threatened as additional
information becomes available.

viState of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Threatened with Extinction
Note that the use of the word ‘threatened’ throughout
this report refers to species categorized as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable on the IUCNRed List. It does not indicate a federal listing statusunder the US Endangered Species Act.

What Are Dark Sky Initiatives?
Dark sky initiatives are part of a global movement to
reduce light pollution by eliminating or restricting
artificial light at night.
Some of the most common initiatives include promoting
the use of lighting fixtures that direct light only where it isneeded, campaigning for communities to adopt lighting
regulations, and encouraging friends and neighbors toturn off unnecessary outdoor lighting after dark.
Light pollution is a significant threat to many species of fireflies aroundthe world. (Photo: José Ángel / flickr.)

1» Primary drivers of decline include habitat loss anddegradation, light pollution, and climate change,highlighting the need for habitat restoration,
greater implementation of Dark Sky initiatives,and identification and protection of high-quality
habitats that may increase species resiliency under
predicted climate change scenarios.
» There is an urgent need for more surveys,
monitoring, and field studies, particularly forthreatened and DD species.
» Land managers, policymakers, scientists, and the
public can play major roles in firefly conservationby protecting fireflies and their habitats,conducting basic research, restoring degraded
Increased survey and monitoring efforts are urgently needed for many fireflysites, completing inventories, monitoring
species, especially those that are categorized as threatened or Data
populations, and expanding education and
Deficient. (Photo: Dan Perlman.)outreach efforts.
» Some of the key barriers to firefly conservation include inadequate data and limited funding. Adding
species to state and federal lists, prioritizing funding for species monitoring and conservation atfederal, state, and local levels, and encouraging students and community scientists to contribute to
firefly research projects can help alleviate some of these challenges.

1
Introduction
There are few insects that inspire such warm feelings of nostalgia as fireflies. Whether you were lucky
enough to grow up with flashing fireflies or have only dreamt of seeing them as an adult, it is still quite likely
you live amongst them. Although flashing fireflies receive a lot of attention, there are actually two othertypes of fireflies that are less well known: daytime dark fireflies and glowworms. Representatives of all threegroups can be found all around the world. Some of these, such as the Pteroptyx congregating synchronous
fireflies found in Southeast Asia, are fairly well studied (e.g., Jusoh et al. 2018; Sartsanga, Swatdipong, andSriboonlert 2018; Jaikla et al. 2020). Others, including the Microphotus glow-worms of the southwestern US,
are relatively unknown. A few, like the common European glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca), are known to
be in decline (Gardiner and Didham 2020). Fireflies around the world are threatened by habitat loss, light
pollution, and pesticide use (Lewis et al. 2020). That they may be declining does not come as a huge surprisein this era of global insect declines (e.g. Wagner et al. 2021). And yet, although anecdotal reports are on therise, only a few studies have been published that support these claims (Khoo et al. 2009; Atkins and Bell2016; Gardiner and Didham 2020). In North America, the state of fireflies was even murkier. Until very
recently, no comprehensive studies had been conducted to assess the state of this region’s firefly populations.
In 2021, researchers with the Xerces Society, Albuquerque BioPark, and International Union for theConservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) Firefly Specialist Group completed
Red List assessments for 132 species and subspecies of North American fireflies, representing 79% of
the known firefly fauna in the United States and Canada at the time (Fallon et al. 2021). This report ismeant to be used as a companion to this paper and the individual assessments published on the IUCNRed List. Here, we summarize the results of the assessments, provide more details about specific threats,
map out geographic areas of conservation concern, and profile individual species that are threatenedwith extinction or nearly threatened by extinction. We also identify major data gaps, review existing
conservation measures for fireflies, and provide additional recommendations for their protection. Our
goal is to present the current state of knowledge regarding the conservation status of fireflies in this region,
with the hope that this information can help guide future management and conservation actions. In thefollowing pages, you will find:• A species checklist and corresponding Red List categories of fireflies in the US and Canada• Maps depicting species richness and areas of high endemism or numbers of threatened species• A summary of the main threats affecting fireflies in the US and Canada• Recommendations for priority research andconservation actions• Species profiles for all 20 threatened and nearly
Endemism is the state of a species being restricted tothreatened species
a single geographic area, whether that be a county,• A list of species of conservation concern,state, country, or other delineated zone. Such species
organized by US state and Canadian province
are referred to as endemic species.

2

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation3

2
Firefly Distribution and Natural History

Figure 1—New firefly species are being discovered to this day, with over
40 new species described from the US and Canada in just the last decade.

Fireflies are members of the incredibly diverse beetle
order Coleoptera. Also known as lightning bugs
and glow-worms, they belong to the firefly family,
Lampyridae. Over 2,200 species from 110 genera havebeen described globally, from every continent except
Antarctica (Slipinski, Leschen, and Lawrence 2011).
The greatest species diversity is found in the Neotropicaland Indomalayan regions of the world (Branham 2010;
Lewis 2016). While species diversity is not as high in
the US and Canada, these two countries are still home
to 171 described taxa from 20 genera (Appendix A).
New species are being described every year; in the US
and Canada, species descriptions have increased slowly
yet steadily over time, with the largest jump occurringin 2018 with the publication of 36 new Photuris species
descriptions (Lloyd 2018; Figure 1).

Figure 2—Representatives of the three firefly types shown below: Pleotomus
nigripennis adult female glow-worm (A), a Lucidota atra daytime dark firefly(B), and a Photuris flashing firefly (C). (Photos: Alex Yelich [A]; Katja Schulz /Flickr [B]; Warren Lynn / Flickr [C].)Just like other beetles, fireflies undergo complete metamorphosis with four distinct life stages: egg, larva,
pupa, and adult (Figure 3). Generation times can vary dramatically depending on the species, latitude,
elevation, and climate; but, in general, fireflies spend most of their lives as larvae. A firefly will typicallytake two to three weeks to hatch from an egg, after which it will undergo multiple instars as it eats
and grows. Up to two years after hatching, the larva will shed its final larval skin and become a pupa.
Another couple weeks later, it will emerge as an adult which will then live for about three weeks (Faust
2010; Lewis 2016; Figure 3).
Fireflies can be found in diverse habitats, from open fields and wetlands to dense forests and desert
canyons. The key element in all firefly habitats is moisture, which is critically needed at all life stages
to prevent desiccation. Within these larger habitats, microhabitats such as small burrows, vegetation,rotting logs, and leaf litter are very important to fireflies, offering shelter, places to perch and signal,
overwintering habitat, hunting grounds, and more.

Figure 3—Fireflies spend most of their lives in the larval stage. After approximately two years as larvae, some species pupate together (A) or alone (B) in
shallow cavities at or slightly above soil level, aboveground on vegetation (C), or in shallow chambers an inch or two belowground (D). Flightless adultfemales (Þ) are found in all three groups, varying from wingless (E) to different levels of short-winged (F), a.k.a. brachypterous, the most extreme of which
are functionally wingless. While all three groups are bioluminescent as larvae and pupae, not all adults have functioning light organs, a.k.a. lanterns.
Daytime dark fireflies and many adult male (ß) glow-worms do not produce light; in both groups the females may signal/ attract males using light(glow-worms) or pheromones (G).

Fireflies can be organized into three different groups
based on their courtship behavior (Figure 2):
1. Flashing fireflies, which are the most-commonlyknown fireflies, are nocturnal or crepuscularand employ bioluminescent courtship signals—
typically a series of quick flashes—to communicate
with potential mates.
2. Glow-worms also use bioluminescence andare active at dusk and after dark; in this group,
flightless females emit long-lasting glows to
attract mostly non-luminescent males.
3. Daytime dark fireflies are diurnally active and do
not light up as adults; instead, they rely on chemicalcues known as pheromones to find mates.
Despite these differences in the use of bioluminescencein adults, all three groups of fireflies emit light as larvae
to communicate that they are distasteful, thereby
avoiding predation.

4

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

5

3

Understanding IUCN Red List Rankings
The IUCN Red List is a barometer of the health of the world’s biodiversity. It uses a series of criteria to assess the extinction riskof thousands of species, thus providing a global inventory of species statuses that can be used to inform research, policy, andon-the-ground conservation efforts, among other uses.
The table below is a simplification of the rankings, and includes only the main criteria; there are subcriteria that also must be
met. See References for more information.
GEOGRAPHIC RANGEPOPULATIONPOPULATION
EXTINCTION
REDUCTION RATEPROBABILITY3
EEO1
AAO2
SIZE
RESTRICTIONSLeast Concern A species that has a widespread and abundant population
Near Threatened A species that is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future
30–50%<1,000 mature
Vulnerable<10,000 mature
at least 10%
population<20,000 km2<2,000 km2
individuals or an
Species
individuals
within 100 years
decline
AAO of <20 km2
50–70%
at least 20%
Endangered<2,500 mature<250 mature
population<5,000 km2<500 km2
within 20 years
Species
individuals
individuals
declineor 5 generations≥80–90%at least 50%
Critically<250 mature<10 mature
population<100 km2<10 km2
within 10 years
Endangered
individuals
individuals
declineor 3 generations
Extinct in the
Only survives in cultivation (plants), in captivity (animals), or as a population well outside its established range
Wild
Extinct No remaining individuals of the species

RANK

Assessment Methodology
Prior to beginning the species assessments, we developed a checklist of all native described Lampyridae
species in the US and Canada by starting with the list compiled by Lloyd (2003) and updating it toinclude recent species descriptions (Cicero 2006; Heckscher 2013; Lloyd 2018; Faust and Davis 2019).
This list was vetted for relevant taxonomic updates (Cicero 2013; ITIS 2020), which resulted in a final
checklist of 165 species and two subspecies (Appendix A). We then removed 35 recently described
species (Lloyd 2018) for which data and species experts were lacking. Four additional species, described
after our assessments were completed (Heckscher 2021), were also not included. This left us with 130
species and two subspecies to include in our assessment.
Data on species distributions, taxonomy, life history, and threats were compiled from the peer-reviewed
and gray literature, digitized museum records, community science initiatives, and through consultation
with species experts. Species occurrence records were compiled for each species and vetted to reduce
potential errors in distribution. These records were used to create species range maps and, when possible,
calculate each species’ extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occurence (AOO).
Each species was then assessed against five IUCN Red List criteria with quantitative thresholds, which
are based on standard biological indicators that render populations more vulnerable to extinction(IUCN 2012):
A—past, present, or future population size reduction;
B—geographical range size with evidence of decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation;
C—small population size with decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation;
D—very small or restricted population; andE—quantitative analysis of extinction risk.

1. Extent of Occurence
2. Area of Occurence
3. In the wild

All of the species assessed as threatened were done so under Criterion B, which examines geographical range size and evidence of decline in number ofindividuals, localities, or habitat, among other subcriteria. For example, both subspecies of the Southwest spring firefly are categorized as threatened
due to their limited ranges in Arizona and documented or suspected declines in habitat. Shown below: Southwest spring fireflies flash along a fenceline. Cattle grazing is a documented threat to this species and its habitat. (Photo: Scott Cylwik.)

Based on the results, each species was assigned to one of the Red List categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct
in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened(NT), Least Concern (LC) or Data Deficient (DD).
The Red List assessments then underwent review by a panel of species experts; 128 were published on
the IUCN Red List in March 2021 (IUCN 2021), while the remaining four await publication. A moredetailed description of the methodology is available in Fallon et al. 2021.

6State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

7

4

Near Threatened Species
Two species were assessed as Near Threatened (NT), which means they are close to qualifying for a
threatened category and could do so in the near future if not monitored and addressed by appropriate
management actions. Profiles for both species are available in Appendix B.

Assessment Results

Least Concern Species

Extinction Risk and Conservation Status
Eighteen species were found to be threatened with extinction (Critically Endangered [CR], Endangered[EN], or Vulnerable [VU]) in the US and Canada (Table 1). Since we lacked population data for these
species, they were all assessed as threatened under Criterion B, which is based on restricted ranges withevidence of decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation. Seven of these threatened species are endemic to asingle state or province (Appendix A). An additional two species are listed as Near Threatened (NT), 42 as
Least Concern (LC), and 70 as Data Deficient (DD) (see Table 1).

Species Threatened with Extinction
Species categorized as CR, EN, or VU are considered threatened because they are facing extremely
high, very high, or high risk of extinction in the wild, respectively (IUCN 2012). Using the Red List
criteria, we found that 14% of species (18 species total) are threatened with extinction. However, thismust be considered a low estimate in light of the large number of DD species. If we were to assume thatall DD species were also threatened, the percentage would rise to 67% (CR + EN + VU + DD); taking a
mid-estimate approach, in which we assume that the same proportion of DD species are threatened as
we found in the non-DD species, 29% of species may be threatened with extinction (Table 2). Profiles
for each threatened species are available in Appendix B.

THREATENED
with EXTINCTION

Table 1. Summary of the Red List Statusof Fireflies in the US and Canada.

{

8

IUCN RED LIST CATEGORY # (%) of spp.
Extinct
0
Extinct in the Wild0
Critically Endangered (CR)
1 (1%)
Endangered (EN)10 (8%)
Vulnerable (VU)
7 (5%)
Near Threatened (NT)2 (2%)
Least Concern (LC)42 (32%)
Data Deficient (DD)70 (53%)TOTAL species assessed
132

Table 2. Number and Percentage of
Firefly Species Threatened with
Extinction in the US and Canada.
Table extracted from Fallon et al. 2021 under aCreative Commons license.
Total Threatened# %Lower bound CR + EN + VU
18 14%
Best (mid)(CR + EN + VU) ÷ (total − DD)
38 29%
estimate× total*Upper bound CR + EN + VU + DD
88 67%(*n=132)

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Approximately one third (32%) of species assessed are listed as Least Concern (LC). These species are
not considered to be under any known major range wide threat that would lead to their extinction
now or in the near future. Many of these species are common and/ or widespread, making it unlikelythat their entire population would be wiped out from any single threatening event. However, largescale
population monitoring of fireflies—including species listed as LC—is not occurring; so, if declines intheir populations are occurring, they are most certainly going undetected. Indeed, declines in otherwidespread and formerly common invertebrates that are better studied have been found (summarizedin Forister et al. 2019).
Despite the LC categorization, some of these firefly species may still benefit from conservation andmanagement efforts. For example, all the species that are currently considered highly attractive for fireflytourism (e.g., synchronous fireflies [Photinus carolinus] and blue ghosts [Phausis reticulata]) have been
listed as LC, yet there is increasing concern from the conservation community about protecting these
species as firefly tourism grows in popularity.

Data Deficient Species
The majority of species assessed (70 total, or 53%),
were categorized as Data Deficient (DD). Thismeans that not enough information was available toaccurately assess their extinction risk, often due to alack of research or a poorly understood geographic
distribution. The high number of DD species
highlights the need for targeted surveys and life
history research. It is very likely that some of theseDD species are threatened with extinction, yet we
do not currently have enough data to clearly support
any extinction risk categorization. Because all the
species assessed as threatened were done so using
Criterion B (geographical range size with evidence of
decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation), DD species
with documented threats but for which very little
information on geographic distribution is available
may also be threatened. In addition, some species,
such as those in the diurnal firefly genus Ellychnia,
were categorized as DD in part due to taxonomic
uncertainty. DD species that are thought to be of highconservation concern are included in the state andprovince species lists in Appendix C.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Figure 4—Even highly attractive species like blue ghost fireflies could beconsidered at-risk in the future, depending on the effects of tourism on
their habitat in addition to other factors. (Photo: Radim Schreiber.)

9

Figure 5—Geographic variation in firefly species richness with the numberof endemic firefly species by state and province.*

Figure 6—Firefly (family Lampryidae) distributions by Level III Ecoregion.

Spatial Distribution of FireflySpeciesFigure 7—Number of threatened species occurring by state or province†.

Fireflies have been documented in every US state
except Hawaii and all Canadian provinces except for
Nunavut (Figure 5*). Twenty-nine species (22%) arethought to be endemic to a single state or province,with the highest rates of endemicity found in Florida
and Arizona (eight species each; Figure 5). The
ecoregions with the highest species richness (defined
here as more than 30 reported species) are the North
Central Appalachians, Northern Allegheny Plateau,
Northern Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Middle Atlantic
Coastal Plain, and Southeastern Plains ecoregions(Figure 6).
Threatened firefly species (n=18) are found primarily
in the eastern and southwestern US; Florida is home
to five threatened species, while six can be found in
the small state of Delaware (Figure 7†). DD species(n=70), when reported as a percentage of total species
for each state, occur in greater numbers in westernstates (Figure 8†). This map highlights areas wheremore research and surveys are needed understandfirefly distributions, population size, trends, andconservation statues.

* 
Note that this map (Figure 5) does not include 35 newly
described Photuris species by Lloyd (2018).

† 
Figure adapted from Fallon et al. 2021 under a Creative
Commons license.

Figure 9—Summary of threats to 88 species of fireflies in the US and Canada, based on IUCN Red List threat categories.

Major Threats to Fireflies in the US and Canada
For species with sufficient information to identify known and suspected threats to their persistence(88 species total), the greatest threats included pollution (primarily light pollution), residential andcommercial development, and climate and severe weather (Figure 9). Notably, many of the other threat
categories denote some type of habitat loss, modification, or degradation; if combined into a single
category of “habitat loss and degradation,” this would vie with pollution for greatest known threat.
Habitat loss has been identified as the single greatest
perceived threat to fireflies worldwide (Lewis et al.
2020). Because so many North American firefly species
are habitat specialists, including all 18 threatened
species, this is particularly troubling. Habitat loss cantake many forms, from residential and commercial
development to modification of waterways andagricultural conversion. Except for large, strong fliers
like the Photuris spp., most fireflies are thought to bepoor dispersers, making it difficult for them to leave
a site and colonize new ones. This is especially true
for glow-worms, which have flightless adult females(Figure 10). Larvae are also not known to move far
beyond their natal habitat. And because both larvae
and adult females are active primarily at groundlevel, they are also much more susceptible to ground
disturbances such as mowing, tilling, heavy machinery
use, and trampling from cattle or people.
Habitat degradation is closely tied to habitat loss. One
source of degradation—light pollution—is increasingly
a major concern for fireflies and other nocturnal wildlife(Owens and Lewis 2018; Owens et al. 2020). Artificial
light at night (ALAN) has been shown to disrupt the

Figure 10—In addition to being flightless as larvae, the adult females ofmany firefly species are flightless, limiting their ability to disperse. Above—
flightless adult female fireflies: pale glow-worm (Pleotomus pallens [A]);Phausis with eggs (B); pine barrens firefly (Photinus scintillans [C]); starry firefly(Ph. stellaris [D]). (Photos: Joe Lapp / BugGuide [A]; James E. Lloyd / University
of Florida [B]; Diane P. Brooks / iNaturalist [C]; Mike Quinn / BugGuide [D].)Figure 8—Data Deficient (DD) species by state and province, reported
as a percent of total species†.

10

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

11

Figure 11—Number of species threatened by pollution, with abreakdown by specific threat.

bioluminescent courtship signals used by fireflies; it
can also interfere with larval dispersal (Owens andLewis 2021a; 2021b). If fireflies cannot communicate,
it becomes more difficult to find a mate; this of course
can have cascading impacts on reproductive fitness
and the longevity of a population. Over 75% of firefly
species in the US and Canada use these courtshipsignals, highlighting the severity of this threat. In ourassessments, light pollution was identified as a threat
to 79 firefly species (Figure 11).

Although not identified as a major threat to fireflies in the US and Canada, pesticide use (Figure 11)
can also degrade habitat and potentially lead to direct mortality of fireflies or their prey. Insecticides
such as neonicotinoids are particularly concerning due to their widespread use and persistence inthe landscape; this class of insecticides has been connected to declines in other insects like bees (Gill,
Ramos-Rodriguez, and Raine 2012; Baron et al. 2017; DiBartolomeis et al. 2019). Given the relatively
few studies examining the effects of pesticides on fireflies, and the fact that pesticide use was perceived
as a major threat to fireflies globally (Lewis et al. 2020), it is likely that pesticides play a larger role infirefly declines in this region than is currently documented.
Climate change and related severe weather events are also threatening firefly populations. Warming
global temperatures are leading to rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms, as well as
drought. Because moisture is so important to fireflies, drought can be particularly devastating to species
that occur in the arid West. In coastal areas, rising sea levels and severe storms like hurricanes candestroy firefly habitats and lead to direct mortality.

Existing Conservation Measures
There are few existing conservation measures in place for fireflies. The Bethany Beach firefly (Photuris
bethaniensis), which was categorized as CR on the IUCN Red List, is listed as State Endangered in
Delaware. This firefly was petitioned for US Endangered Species Act (US ESA) listing in 2020 andreceived a positive 90-day finding (USFWS 2021). It is now awaiting a Species Status Assessment by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine its fate. No other firefly species are legally
protected or petitioned at the federal or state level.
Several species are identified as imperiled in state and regional lists, including those maintainedby state heritage programs, state wildlife agencies, and NatureServe. In addition, at least four states(Florida, South Carolina, Delaware, Maryland) currently include some fireflies as Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN) in their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), and many others plan to
add threatened and at-risk firefly species in their upcoming 10-year SWAP updates. Including species
in SWAPs can spur conservation action; in 2000, Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG)
Program, which distributes funding to states for the conservation and management of nongame species.
Species that are listed as SGCN are considered high priority, particularly when few to no other funding
mechanisms exist.

12

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

5
Moving Forward: Taking Action for Fireflies
These assessments have made it clear that additional
research and conservation efforts are needed to protect
fireflies in the US and Canada. Nearly all threatenedand Data Deficient (DD) species had the same
recommended conservation actions: surveys andmonitoring, habitat protection, and basic life history
research (Fallon et al. 2021). In the following sections,
we recommend next steps for firefly conservation.

Applied Research» Determine population sizes of firefly species,
particularly threatened and DD species, to forma baseline and begin assessing trends over time.
» Conduct research on the impacts of pesticides onfireflies and their prey; very little research to date
has looked specifically at the effects on fireflies.
» Grow collaborative research initiatives that work
to fill in data gaps and protect highly at-risk
species.
» Conduct research that will inform the
management and conservation of fireflies andtheir habitats, including studies of their ecology
and natural history and the effects of various
human activities (including mowing, timber
management, grazing, insecticide use, and watermodifications) on firefly population health.
» Taxonomic research to complete new species
descriptions, untangle lingering taxonomic
uncertainties, and update species identification
keys.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Figure 12—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at-risk conservation fellows &Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife staff identify fireflies during a
population survey for the Bethany Beach firefly. (Photos: Kayt Jonsson,
USFWS / flickr.)
Figure 13—Research into firefly ecology and species' natural histories will
be necessary to identify species that overlap, like these clearly different
species signaling in the same meadow. (Photo: Brandom Keim / flickr.)

13

Surveys and Monitoring

Figure 14—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at-risk conservation fellows &Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife staff survey Bethany Beach for theendangered Bethany Beach firefly (Photo: Kayt Jonsson, USFWS / flickr.)

The term 'at-risk' is used here to include Near
Threatened species as well as DD species we suspect
are threatened.

» Expand inventory and monitoring initiatives for
fireflies. Participate in programs such as theFirefly Atlas (www.fireflyatlas.org), which is
working to fill data gaps for threatened and DD
species.
» Monitor populations of threatened fireflies andfollow adaptive management practices to ensure
populations remain stable.
» Fund and expand community science efforts
like Firefly Watch and Western Firefly Project toinclude larger geographic areas, provide training
opportunities, and develop tools to enable specieslevel identifications within these programs.
» Develop a community science program for
non-flashing species (i.e., daytime dark fireflies
and glow-worms) or encourage reporting ofsuch species through established programs likeiNaturalist.
» Prioritize surveys for potentially at-risk DD
species (see Appendix C) to determine whether
they need conservation attention.
» Digitize and ensure that collection data areshared with larger repositories such as the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) andSymbiota Collections of Arthropods Network(SCAN) so that researchers, conservationists, andland managers have access to this information.

Habitat Protection andEnhancement

Figure 15—Boardwalks like this one in Congaree National Park, South
Carolina, help ensure visitor safety while protecting fireflies and theirfragile wetland habitats. (Photo: Congaree National Park).

14» Work with major landowners and managers to
restore and protect firefly habitat.
• Prioritize protecting existing firefly habitat.
• Protect both adult and larval habitat; keep inmind that fireflies spend the majority of theirlives (up to two years or more) in the larvalstage.
• Restore degraded habitats, such as wetlands,
where fireflies occur.
» Determine the land ownership that underlies
threatened species occurrences. How many occur
in protected places like parks and reserves? How
many are on private lands? Federal or state publicState of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

lands? Use this information to identify major
landowners and managers who could play a rolein firefly conservation, and work with them todevelop species or habitat management plans.
» Consider fireflies when developing agriculturalconservation efforts; they are an importantcomponent of healthy soil ecosystems and spend
the vast majority of their lives at or under the soil
surface.
» Create Firefly Sanctuaries that protect fireflies andtheir habitats, provide spaces for firefly research,and educate and engage the public in firefly
conservation.
» Follow and promote sustainable tourism
guidelines at firefly tourist sites (see US Firefly
Tourism Resources on page 16 for details).

Species Protections

Figure 16—Lottery winners of tickets to the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park synchronous firefly event are brought to the site by trolley to limit thevisitors’ impact on the fireflies. (Photo: Warren Bielenberg, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park / flickr.)» Include threatened and at-risk species as Speciesof Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Stateand Regional Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs);
see Appendix C for a list of species by state andprovince.
» Add imperiled species to relevant U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management(BLM) sensitive species lists.
» Protect highly imperiled species under the US
Endangered Species Act (US ESA).

Education and Outreach» Expand education and outreach efforts to ensurethat the best available science is accessible topractitioners, policymakers, land managers, andthe public.
» Educate the public on threats to fireflies and steps
they can take to protect fireflies and their habitats.
» Promote Dark Sky Initiatives to curtail light
pollution, which is a major threat to 75% of firefly
species in the US and Canada.
» Include fireflies in lesson plans; talk about their
biology and conservation needs; go on field trips
to local natural areas to expose more people of allages to the magic of fireflies.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Figure 17—Well-designed exhibits like this one at the Utah Natural History
Museum in Salt Lake City engage visitors while educating them about local
species. The one-of-a-kind firefly model, named Franklin, was sculpted bymuseum artist Emily Szalay. The habitat display has been converted intoa traveling mini-diorama. (Photos: Utah Museum of Natural History.)

15

6

7

Further Reading
Conserving the Jewels of the Night: Guidelines
for Protecting Fireflies in the UnitedStates and Canada https://xerces.org/
publications/guidelines/conservingjewels-of-night
Conserving the Jewels of the Night: FireflyFriendly Lighting Practices https://
xerces.org/publications/fact-sheets/
firefly-friendly-lighting (available in
English and Spanish)
Firefly Conservation: A Guide to Protecting
the Jewels of the Night https://xerces.
org/publications/brochures/fireflyconservation

References

US Firefly Tourism Resources
Visit xerces.org/fireflies to download additional
resources for sustainable firefly tourism, including
an easy-print Visitor’s Etiquette Guide that canbe displayed or distributed before events and a
Site Manager's Guide with more information onconserving fireflies, recommendations for future
action, and additional resources.
Figure 18—Three copies of the Visitor’s Etiquette Guide can be
printed on on letter paper using a small office printer, making
it easy to share with participants before and during events.

The Xerces Society’s Firefly Conservation
Campaign https://xerces.org/fireflies
Silent Sparks: The Wondrous Worldof Fireflies by Sara Lewis https://silentsparks.com/
Fireflies, Glow-worms, and Lightning bugs:
Identification and Natural Historyof the Fireflies of the Eastern andCentral United States and Canada
by Lynn Faust https://ugapress.org/
book/9780820348728/fireflies-glowworms-and-lightning-bugs/
Field Guide to Western North American Fireflies by Larry Buschman https://entomology.k-state.edu/
doc/Kansas%20Fireflies%20May%202015.pdf
Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America by Fallon et al. (2021).
PLoS One. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259379

16

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Atkins, V., and D. Bell. 2016. “The Status of the Glow-Worm Lampyris Noctiluca L. (Coleoptera:Lampyridae) in England.” Lampyrid 4:20–35.
Baron, G. L., V. A. A. Jansen, M. J. F. Brown, and N. E. Raine. 2017. “Pesticide Reduces Bumblebee Colony
Initiation and Increases Probability of Population Extinction.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(9):1308–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0260-1.
Branham, M. 2010. “Lampyridae.” In Coleoptera, Beetles. Morphology and Systematics (Elateroidea,
Bostrichiformia, Cucujiformia Partim)., edited by R. a. B. Leschen, R.G. Beutel, and J. F. Lawrence,
2:141–49. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911213.
Buschman, L. 2015 (May Draft). Field Guide to Western North American Fireflies. Manhattan:
Department of Entomology, Kansas State University. https://entomology.k-state.edu/doc/
Kansas%20Fireflies%20May%202015.pdf [Accessed 1 Dec 2021]
Cicero, J. 2006. “Two New Genera and One New Species of Firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae: Lampyrinae:
Lampyrini), with Notes on Their Biology.” Pan-Pacific Entomologist 82 (September): 200–207.
Cicero, J. 2013. “World Lampyridae, Lycidae, Phengodidae, Drilidae and Miscellany.” 2013. http://
mycantharoidea.arizona.edu/.
DiBartolomeis, M., S. Kegley, P. Mineau, R. Radford, and K. Klein. 2019. “An Assessment of AcuteInsecticide Toxicity Loading (AITL) of Chemical Pesticides Used on Agricultural Land in the
United States.” PLOS ONE 14(8):e0220029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220029.
Fallon, C. E., A. Walker, S. M. Lewis, J. Cicero, L. Faust, C. M. Heckscher, C. X. Pérez-Hernández, B.
Pfeiffer, and S. Jepsen. 2021. “Evaluating Firefly Extinction Risk: Initial Red List Assessments forNorth America.” PLOS ONE 16(11):e0259379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259379
Faust, L. F. 2010. “Natural History and Flash Repertoire of the Synchronous Firefly Photinus Carolinus(Coleoptera: Lampyridae) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.” Florida Entomologist
93(2):208–17. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.093.0210.
Faust, L. 2017. Fireflies, Glow-Worms, and Lightning Bugs: Identification and Natural History of the Firefliesof the Eastern and Central United States and Canada. 376 pp. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Faust, L. F., and J. Davis. 2019. “A New Species of Photuris Dejean (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) from a
Mississippi Cypress Swamp, with Notes on Its Behavior.” The Coleopterists Bulletin 73(1):97–
113. https://doi.org/10.1649/0010-065X-73.1.97.
Forister, M. L., E. M. Pelton, and S. H. Black. 2019. “Declines in Insect Abundance and Diversity: We Know
Enough to Act Now.” Conservation Science and Practice 1(8):e80. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.80.
Gardiner, T., and R. K. Didham. 2020. “Glowing, Glowing, Gone? Monitoring Long‐term Trends in
Glow‐worm Numbers in South‐east England.” Insect Conservation and Diversity 13(2):162–74.
https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12407.
Gill, R. J., O. Ramos-Rodriguez, and N. E. Raine. 2012. “Combined Pesticide Exposure Severely Affects
Individual- and Colony-Level Traits in Bees.” Nature 491(7422):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature11585.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation17

Heckscher, C. M. 2013. “Photuris Mysticalampas (Coleoptera: Lampyridae): A New Firefly from Peatland
Floodplain Forests of the Delmarva Peninsula.” Entomological News 123(2):93–100. https://doi.
org/10.3157/021.123.0202.
Heckscher, C. M. 2021. “Four New Species of North American Fireflies from Isolated Peatlands with
Reference to Species Determination of Photuris Dejean (Coleoptera: Lampyridae).” Northeastern
Naturalist 28(3):277–95. https://doi.org/10.1656/045.028.0304.
ITIS. 2020. “Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).” 2020. https://itis.gov/.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. “IUCN Red List Categories andCriteria, Version 3.1, Second Edition.” https://www.iucn.org/content/iucn-red-list-categoriesand-criteria-version-31-second-edition.
IUCN. 2021. “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.” IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2021.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/en.
Jaikla, S., S. M. Lewis, A. Thancharoen, and N. Pinkaew. 2020. “Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat
Characteristics of the Congregating Firefly, Pteroptyx Olivier (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)
in Thailand.” Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 13(3):358–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
japb.2020.06.002.
Jusoh, W. F. A., L. Ballantyne, C. L. Lambkin, N. R. Hashim, and N. Wahlberg. 2018. “The Firefly Genus
Pteroptyx Olivier Revisited (Coleoptera: Lampyridae: Luciolinae).” Zootaxa 4456(1):1–71.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4456.1.1.
Khoo, V., B. Nada, L. G. Kirton, and P. Chooi-Khim. 2009. “Monitoring the Population of theFirefly Pteroptyx Tener along the Selangor River, Malaysia for Conservation and Sustainable
Ecotourism.” Lampyrid 2(January):162–73.
Lewis, S. M. 2016. Silent Sparks: The Wondrous World of Fireflies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Lewis, S. M, C. H. Wong, A. C. S. Owens, C. Fallon, S. Jepsen, A. Thancharoen, C. Wu, et al. 2020.
“A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats.” BioScience 70(2):157–67. https://doi.
org/10.1093/biosci/biz157.
Lloyd, J. E. 2003. “On Research and Entomological Education VI: Firefly Species and Lists, Old and Now.”
Florida Entomologist, June, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1653/0015-4040(2003)086[0099:ORAEE
V]2.0.CO;2.
Lloyd, J. E. 2018. A Naturalist’s Long Walk among Shadows of North American Photuris: Patterns,
Outlines, Silhouettes... Echoes. Bridgen Press.
Owens, A. C. S., and S. M. Lewis. 2018. “The Impact of Artificial Light at Night on Nocturnal Insects:
A Review and Synthesis.” Ecology and Evolution 8(22):11337–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ece3.4557.
Owens, A. C. S., P. Cochard, J. Durrant, B. Farnworth, E. K. Perkin, and B. Seymoure. 2020. “Light
Pollution Is a Driver of Insect Declines.” Biological Conservation 241(January):108259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259.
Owens, A. C. S., and S. M. Lewis. 2021a. “Narrow‐spectrum Artificial Light Silences Female Fireflies(Coleoptera: Lampyridae).” Insect Conservation and Diversity 14(2):199–210. https://doi.
org/10.1111/icad.12487.
Owens, A. C. S., and S. M. Lewis. 2021b. “Effects of Artificial Light on Growth, Development, andDispersal of Two North American Fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae).” Journal of Insect
Physiology 130(April):104200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2021.104200.
Sartsanga, C., A. Swatdipong, and A. Sriboonlert. 2018. “Distribution of the Firefly Genus Pteroptyx
Olivier and a New Record of Pteroptyx Asymmetria Ballantyne (Coleoptera: Lampyridae:
Luciolinae) in Thailand.” The Coleopterists Bulletin 72(1):171–83. https://doi.org/10.1649/0010065X-72.1.171

18

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Slipinski, S. A., R. a. B. Leschen, and J. F. Lawrence. 2011. “Order Coleoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In : Zhang,
Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-Level Classification and Survey of
Taxonomic Richness.” Zootaxa 3148(1):203–8. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3148.1.39.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. “Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Online
Database.” Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior. https://ecos.fws.gov/
ecp0/reports/ad-hoc-species-report-input.
Wagner, D. L., E. M. Grames, M. L. Forister, M. R. Berenbaum, and D. Stopak. 2021. “Insect Decline in
the Anthropocene: Death by a Thousand Cuts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
118(2):e2023989118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023989118.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

19

Appendix

A

A Note About Flightless Females (Þ)
As the adult females of many firefly species are flightless, this limits their ability to disperse, leaving them more
vulnerable to habitat disturbance, destruction, or trampling, than their winged relatives. As this limited mobility
increases a species' risk of extinction, whether or not a species is known to have flightless females has been
included in the table below. Please note that in some of the DD species, the female form is unknown.

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada with
Corresponding Red List Categories
*

LIST

ŝ

s Þ

les

t
igh

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Aspisoma ignitum

Linnaeus, 1767

Dixon's striped firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—FL?, TX?

Southwest spring firefly

VU

Flash

No

AZ US—AZ

Bicellonycha wickershamorum ż Cicero, 1982

Fl

E

sm

mi

e
nd

SPECIES

1

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†

B. w. ssp. piceum ż

Cicero, 1982

Gila southwest spring firefly

EN

Flash

No

AZ US—AZ?

B. w. ssp. wickershamorum ż

Cicero, 1982

Southwest spring firefly

VU

Flash

No

AZ US—AZ

Brachylampis blaisdelli

VanDyke, 1939

Blaisdell's firefly

DD

Day

No

CA US—CA?

Brachylampis sanguinicollis

VanDyke, 1939

Blood-necked / red-collared firefly

DD

Day

No

CA US—CA?

Ellychnia alexanderi

Fender, 1969

Alexander's firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—AZ?, CO?, UT?

Ellychnia autumnalis

Melsheimer, 1852

Autumnal firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—AK?, ID?, IN?, MN?, MT?, NC?, NJ?, NY?, OH?, PA?, RI?, WA?, WI? | CAN?—AB?, BC?, NT?, ON?, QC?

Ellychnia bivulnerus ż
Ellychnia californica

Green, 1949

Twice-wounded firefly

DD*

Day

No

AZ US—AZ?

Motschulsky, 1854

California glow-worm; western firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—CA, OR, WA | CAN—BC

Ellychnia captiosa

Fender, 1969

Tricky firefly

DD

Day

No

CA US—CA?

Ellychnia corrusca

Linnaeus, 1767

Winter firefly

Day

No

— US—AL, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, PA, RI,
TN, VA, VT, WI, WV | CAN—AB, BC, MB, NB, NL, NS, NT, ON, QC, PE, YT, SK

Ellychnia facula

LeConte, 1857

Little torch firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—ID?, MT, OR?, WA? | CAN—BC

Ellychnia flavicollis

LeConte, 1868

Yellow-necked / -collared firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—CA?, CO, NM, NV?, TX

Ellychnia granulicollis

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Granular-necked firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—MT?, OR

Ellychnia greeni

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Green's firefly

LC

Day

No

— US—CA?, OR?, WA | CAN—BC

Ellychnia hatchi

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Pacific Northwest firefly

LC

Day

No

— US—CA, MT, OR, WA | CAN—BC

Ellychnia irrorata

Fender, 1969

Sprinkled firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—AZ?

Ellychnia lacustris

LeConte, 1852

Lake firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—MA?, MD?, ME?, MI?, MN?, NH?, NY?, TN?, VT?, WI?

Ellychnia megista

Fender, 1970

Greater firefly

DD

Day

No

CA US—CA

Ellychnia obscurevittataFender in Hatch, 1962

Obscured- / hidden- fillet firefly

DD

Day

No

OR US—OR?

Ellychnia simplex

LeConte, 1885

Simple firefly

DD

Day

No

AZ US—AZ

Lucidota atra

G.A. Olivier, 1790

Black firefly; woodland Lucy

Day

No

— US—AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC,
TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV | CAN—MB, NB, NS, ON, QC, PE

Lucidota luteicollis żLucidota punctata

LeConte, 1878

Florida scrub dark firefly

VU

Day

YES

FL US—FL

LeConte, 1852

Dotted firefly; tiny Lucy

LC

Day

No

— US—AL, CT, GA, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MS, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, WI | CAN—ON

Micronaspis floridana żMicrophotus angustus

Green, 1948

Florida intertidal / mangrove / fiddler crab firefly

EN

Flash

No

— US—FL

LeConte, 1874

California pink glow-worm

LC

Glow

YES

— US—AZ, CA, NM?

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡220ż Species of Conservation Concern

3

LC

LC

ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm
State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada†

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation21

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada… (continued)
*

LIST

s Þ

les

t
igh

ism

em

End

ŝ

Fl

DD

Glow

YES

AZ US—AZ?

Dilated glow-worm

DD

Glow

YES

— US—AZ

E. Olivier, 1912

Fragile glow-worm

DD*

Glow

YES

AZ US—AZ

Fall, 1912

Desert firefly

DD

Glow

YES

— US—AZ, NM, TX, UT?

Microphotus pecosensis

Fall, 1912

Pecos desert firefly; mountain glow-worm

DD

Glow

YES

— US—AZ, CO?, NM, TX, UT?

Nelsonphotus aridus

Cicero, 2006

Nelson's desert firefly

DD

Glow

YES

— US—CA?

Paraphausis eximius ż
Phausis californica

Green, 1949

Superb ghost

DD*

Day

Fender, 1966

California / western ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—CA?

Phausis dorothae

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Dorothy's ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—CA, OR?

Phausis inaccensa

LeConte, 1878

Shadow ghost

LC

Glow

YES

— US—AL, AR, GA, IN, MI, MN, MS, NC, OK, PA, TN, TX

Phausis luminosa

Fender, 1966

Luminous ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—AR?, OK?

Phausis marina

Fender, 1966

Seaside / coastal ghost

DD

Glow

YES

CA US—CA?

Phausis nigra

Hopping, 1937

Black ghost

DD

Glow

YES

BC CAN—BC

Phausis reticulata

Say, 1825

Blue ghost; Appalachian glow-worm firefly

LC

Glow

YES

— US—AL, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, NC, SC, TN, VA

Phausis rhombica

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Rhombic ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—OR?, WA | CAN—AB, BC

Phausis riversi

LeConte, 1884

River's ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—CA, OR?

Phausis skelleyi

Fender in Hatch, 1962

Skelley's ghost

DD

Glow

YES

— US—OR?, WA?

Photinus acuminatus ż
Photinus aquilonius

Green, 1956

Pointy-lobed firefly

EN

Flash

No

— US—(AL?), {FL}, GA?, MS?, {NC}, OH, (SC?)

Lloyd, 1969

Northern firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—MA?, ME, MI?, MN?, SD?, WI? | CAN?—MB?, NS?, ON?, QC?

Photinus ardens

LeConte, 1852

Northern ablaze flash-train

DD

Flash

No

— US—IL?, MA?, ME, MI?, MN?, NY?, PA?, WI?, WV? | CAN?—MB?, ON?, QC?

Photinus australis

Green, 1956

Twilight bush baby

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, MO, MS, NC, TN

Photinus brimleyi

Green, 1956

Sidewinder; Brimley's photinus firefly

LC

Flash

YES

— US—AL, AR?, GA, KY, NC, OK?, TNGreen, 1956

Synchronous / Smokies synchronous firefly; light
show

LC

Flash

No

— US—GA, KY, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV

LeConte, 1878

Florida fishhook; early field firefly

DD*

Flash

YES

— US—FL?, GA?

Lloyd, 1968

Concise / short firefly

LC

Flash

No

TX US—TX

LeConte, 1852

Double cousin

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX,
VA, VT, WV | CAN—MB, NS, ON

Photinus consimilis

Green, 1956

Cattail flash-train firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV

Photinus cookii

Green, 1956

Cook's / fairy ring firefly

DD

Day

No

— US—AL?, FL?, IL?, KY?, MO, NC?, TN?, TX

Photinus curtatus

Green, 1956

Clipped / brush single-flash firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MO, NE, NY, OH, OK, PA, SD | CAN—ON

Photinus dimissus żPhotinus floridanus

LeConte, 1881

Two-step flasher firefly

NT

Flash

YES

— US—OK?, TX

Fall, 1927

Florida sprite

DD

Flash

No

— US—(AL?), DE, FL?, (GA?), (MD?), (NC?), (SC?), (VA?)

Photinus frosti

Green, 1956

Frost's firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—FL?, LA?

Photinus granulatus ż

Fall, 1927

Lawn single-flash firefly

DD*

Flash

YES

— US—AR?, KS, OK?, TX

SPECIES

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Microphotus chiricahuae

Green, 1959

Chiricahua glow-worm

Microphotus dilatatus

LeConte, 1866

Microphotus fragilis żMicrophotus octarthrus

Photinus carolinus
Photinus collustrans ż
Photinus concisus
Photinus consanguineus

1

LC

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡2 ż Species of Conservation Concern3 ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm

22

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†

Presumed Yes AZ US—AZ†

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation23

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada… (continued)
*

LIST

ŝ

s Þ

les

t
igh

ism

em

End

SPECIES

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Photinus greeni

Lloyd, 1969

Green's firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—(CT?), FL, (GA?), MA, MD, (NC?), NH, (NJ?), (NY?), (PA?), (RI?), (SC?), (VA?)

Photinus ignitus

Fall, 1927

Ignited / delayed photinus firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, MN, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT | CAN—NB, ON, QC

Photinus immaculatus ż
Photinus indictus

Green, 1956

Unblemished firefly

DD*

Flash

No

TX US—TX?

LeConte, 1881

Silent firefly

LC

Day

No

— US—AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NY, OH, PA, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI | CAN—ON, QC

Photinus knulli ż
Photinus lineellus

Green, 1956

Southwest synchronous firefly

VU

Flash

No

— US—AZ

LeConte, 1852

Small-lined firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AL?, FL, MS?, AR, TX, NE

Lloyd, 1966

Mr. Mac

FlashNo— US—(AL?), (AR?), (CT?), (DC?), DE, FL, (GA?), (IL?), (IN?), (KS?), KY, (LA?), MA, (MD?), MI, (MO?), (MS?), NC, (NH?),(NJ?), NY, (OH?), OK, PA, SC, TN, (VA?), (VT?), (WV?) | (CAN?—ON?)

LeConte, 1852

Little gray firefly

Flash

No

— US—AL, (AR?), CT, (DC?), DE, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, (RI?), (SC?), TN,(VT?), WI, WV | CAN—ON, QC

LeConte, 1851

Murky flash-train

Flash

No

— US—C T, (DC?), (DE?), IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, (RI?), SD, (VT?), WI, WV | CAN—MB, NB,
NL, NS, ON, QC, PE

LeConte, 1852

Punctate firefly

Flash

YES

— US—AR, IA?, IL?, KS?, MO?, OK?, TX?

Linnaeus, 1767

Big dipper / common eastern / J-stroke firefly

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, (AZ?), {CO}, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV | CAN—ON

Photinus sabulosus

Green, 1956

Creekside tree blinkers

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, DE, IL, KY, MD, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA | CAN—ON

Photinus scintillans

Say, 1825

Pale / yellow-bellied / pine barrens firefly

LC

Flash

YES

— US—DC, DE, IN, MD, MO, NJ, NY, OH, PA, VA, WV

Photinus stellaris

Fall, 1927

Starry firefly

LC

Flash

YES

TX US—TX

Photinus tanytoxus

Lloyd, 1966

Long arc firefly

DD

Flash

YES

— US—FL?, GA?

Photinus tenuicinctus

Green, 1956

Thinly girdled firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AR?, OK?

Photinus texanus

Green, 1956

Texas tinie firefly; Texas tinies

LC

Flash

No

— US—TX

Photinus umbratus

LeConte, 1878

Shaded firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AL?, FL?, GA?, LA?, MS?, NC?, SC?

Photuris alexanderi

Lloyd, 2018

UMBS firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—MI]

Photuris alleganiensis

Lloyd, 2018

Allegany firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NY]

Photuris annaHeckscher, 2021

Anna's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NJ]

Photuris appalachianensis

Lloyd, 2018

Appalachian dot-dash firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—MD]

Photuris asacoa

Lloyd, 2018

Leopold’s firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—IA]

Photuris aureolucens ż
Photuris barberi

Barber, 1951

Golden light / glow firefly

DD*

Flash

No

WI US—WI?

Lloyd, 2018

Barber's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photuris beanii

Lloyd, 2018

Bean's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris bethaniensis żPhoturis billbrowni

McDermott, 1953

Bethany Beach firefly

CR

Flash

No

— US—DE, MD

Lloyd, 2018

Bill’s hitch

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photuris branhami

Lloyd, 2018

Double mother

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris bridgeniensis

Lloyd, 2018

Hitched-single; Bridgen homestead firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NY]

Photuris caerulucens ż
Photuris campestra

Barber, 1951

Slow blue firefly; slow blues

DD*

Flash

No

— US—MN?, WI

Lloyd, 2018

Notch-dash flasher

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photinus macdermotti
Photinus marginellus
Photinus obscurellus
Photinus punctulatus ż
Photinus pyralis

1

LC
LC
LC
DD*
LC

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡2 ż Species of Conservation Concern3 ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm

24

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Fl†

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation25

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada… (continued)
*

LIST

ŝ

s Þ

les

t
igh

ism

em

End

SPECIES

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Photuris carrorum

Lloyd, 2018

Carrs’ crescendo

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, SC]

Photuris chenangoa

Lloyd, 2018

Chenango firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NJ, NY]

Photuris cinctipennis żBarber, 1951

Belted firefly; flicker mother

EN

Flash

No

— US—DE, MD

Photuris congener ż
Photuris cowaseloniensis

LeConte, 1852

Florida single snappy

DD*

Flash

No

— US—FL, (GA?)

Lloyd, 2018

Creek-Penn / Cowesalon Creek firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NY]

Photuris darwini

Lloyd, 2018

Darwin's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—AL, GA, KY, SC, TN, VA]

Photuris divisa

LeConte, 1852

Flint Hills firefly; double flash

LC

Flash

No

— US—IL, KS, MO, OK

Photuris dorothae

Lloyd, 2018

Little red

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, GA, NC]

Photuris douglasae

Lloyd, 2018

Douglas' firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, GA]

Photuris eliza

Heckscher, 2021

Eliza's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—DE]

Photuris eureka

Lloyd, 2018

Mallory Swamp firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Barber, 1951

Cape Breton firefly; Fairchild's predator

Flash

No

— US—C T, (DC?), (DE?), GA, IA, (IL?), (IN?), KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, (PA?), SC, SD, TN,
VA, VT, WI, WV | CAN—NS, ON

Photuris flavicollis ż
Photuris floridana

Fall, 1927

Sky Island firefly

VU

Flash

Presumed No

Fall, 1927

Florida firefly

DD

Flash

No

FL US—FL?

Photuris forresti ż
Photuris frontalis

Lloyd, 2018

Loopy five / Forrest's firefly

EN

Flash

No

— US—GA, SC, TN

LeConte, 1852

Snappy single sync firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX

Photuris gentrae

Lloyd, 2018

Lesser Texas-red firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photuris harrannorum

Lloyd, 2018

Florida Versi (triple-flash)

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris hebes

Barber, 1951

Heebie-jeebies; slow-hitch firefly

LC

Flash

No

— US—AR, DC, DE, GA, IN, MD, NC, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, WV

Photuris hiawasseensis

Lloyd, 2018

Hiawassee River firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—SC, TN, WV]

Photuris katrinae

Lloyd, 2018

Texas red

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photuris lamarcki

Lloyd, 2018

Sidewinder firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, GA, SC]

Photuris lineaticollis

Motschulsky, 1854

Giant red

DD

Flash

No

FL US—FL?

Photuris lloydi

McDermott, 1966

Lloyd's predator; Highlands Hammock crescendo

LC

Flash

No

FL US—FL

Photuris lucicrescens

Barber, 1951

July comets; big scaries; big-Lucy; great crescendo

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, DC, DE, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV

Photuris lynfaustae

Lloyd, 2018

Hitched red

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—GA]

Photuris maicoi

Lloyd, 2018

Big red

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris margotooleae

Lloyd, 2018

Integrity firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—CT, NY]

Photuris missouriensis

McDermott, 1962

Prairie train firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AR?, IA?, KS?, KY?, MO?, OH?

Photuris moorei

Lloyd, 2018

Fast crescendo

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—GA, MO]

Photuris mysticalampas ż
Photuris paludivulpes

Heckscher, 2013

Mysterious lantern / mystic lantern firefly

EN

Flash

No

DE US—DE

Lloyd, 2018

Swamp-fox firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—SC]

Photuris patriei

Lloyd, 2018

Oklawaha

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris pensylvanica ż

DeGeer, 1774

Dot-dash / Pennsylvania firefly; Barber's Penn

VU

Flash

No

— US—DC?, DE, MD, NJ?, NY?, PA?

Photuris fairchildi

1

LC

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡2 ż Species of Conservation Concern3 ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm

26

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Fl†

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†TX US—NM?, TX

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation27

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada… (continued)
*

LIST

ŝ

s Þ

les

t
igh

ism

em

End

SPECIES

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Photuris polacekae

Lloyd, 2018

Polacek's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—TX]

Photuris potomaca żBarber, 1951

Potomac River firefly

DD*

Flash

No

— US—CT?, DC?, KY?, MD?, OH?, VA?, WV?

Photuris pyralomima ż
Photuris quadrifulgens

Barber, 1951

Common eastern mimic, Pyralis-mimicking firefly

EN

Flash

No

— US—DE, {NY}Barber, 1951

Spring 4-flasher

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, CT, GA, (IA?), IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, VA

Photuris salina ż
Photuris sellicki

Barber, 1951

Salt marsh firefly

NT

Flash

No

— US—DE, MD, NJ, (VA?)

Heckscher, 2021

Sellick's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—NY]

Photuris sheckscheri

Heckscher, 2021

Schecksher's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—DE, NJ]

Photuris sivinskii

Lloyd, 2018

Quick 1-2

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, GA, MO]

Photuris stanleyi

Lloyd, 2018

Florida tremulans; Stanley's firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL, GA]

Photuris stevensae

Lloyd, 2018

Nettie’s firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—CT, MA, NY]

Photuris tasunkowitcoi

Lloyd, 2018

Crazy Horse firefly

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—ND]

Barber, 1951

Christmas lights; confusing firefly

Flash

No

— US—AL, (AR?), (CT?), (DC?), (DE?), (GA?), (IL?), (IN?), (KY?), MA, (MD?), (MO?), (MS?), (NC?), (NJ?), (NY?), (OH?),(OK?), (PA?), (SC?), TN, VA, (WV?)

Photuris versicolor

Fabricius, 1798

Variable triple-flash firefly; multi-flash predator

LC

Flash

No

— US—AL, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, (KS?), KY, MD, (MO?), MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV

Photuris walkeri

Lloyd, 2018

Long red

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Photuris walldoxeyi ż
Photuris whistlerae

Faust, 2019

Cypress / Wall Doxey's firefly

VU

Flash

No

— US—IL, IN, (KY?), MS, TN

Lloyd, 2018

Whistler’s mother

NE

Flash

No

n/a [US—FL]

Pleotomodes knulli

Green, 1949

Anthill firefly

DD

Glow

YES

FL US—FL?

Pleotomodes needhami żPleotomus nigripennis

Green, 1948

Ant-loving scrub firefly

EN

Glow

YES

FL US—FL

LeConte, 1885

Black-winged firefly

DD

Glow

YES

— US—AZ, (CA?), NM?, TX

Pleotomus pallens

LeConte, 1866

Pale glow-worm

LC

Glow

YES

— US—KS, OK, TX

Pollaclasis bifaria

Say, 1835

Branched Polly

DD

Day

No

— US—(AL?), FL, (GA?), (IL?), IN, (KY?), LA, (MI?), MS, (NC?), (NY?), OH, (PA?), (SC?), TN, VA, WI, (WV?) | CAN—ON, QC

Prolutacea pulsator ż
Pterotus curticornis

Cicero, 1984

Pulsating firefly

DD*

Glow

YES

— US—AZ

Chemsak, 1978

Short-horned glow-worm

DD

Glow

Pterotus obscuripennis

LeConte, 1859

Douglas fir glow-worm

LC

Glow

YES

— US—CA, OR, WA

Say, 1825

Say's / candle / angled firefly

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH,
OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV | CAN—MB, NB, NS, ON, QC

Pyractomena angustata ż

LeConte, 1851

Glowing / narrow spring firefly

DD*

Flash

No

— US—AL?, FL?, GA?, MS?

Pyractomena barberi żGreen, 1957

Barber's spring firefly

DD*

Flash

No

FL US—FL?

Randall, 1828

Spring treetop flasher; northern firefly

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI,
SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV | CAN—AB, MB, NS, ON, QC, SK

Green, 1957

Marsh flicker; wiggle dancer (western states)

Flash

No

— US—AL, AR, AZ?, CO, CT, DC, DE?, GA, (IA?), ID, (IL?), (KS?), KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, (MT?), ND, (NE?), NH, NJ,(NM?), NY, OH, OK, PA, (RI?), (SD?), TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, (WV?), (WY?) | CAN—AB, MB, SK

Pyractomena ecostata ż

LeConte, 1878

Keel-necked / striped firefly

EN

Flash

No

— US—AL, DE, FL, NJ

Pyractomena floridana ż
Pyractomena limbicollis

Green, 1957

Florida spring firefly

DD*

Flash

No

— US—AL?, FL?, MS?

Green, 1957

Margin-necked firefly

DD

Flash

No

FL US—FL?

Photuris tremulans

Pyractomena angulata

Pyractomena borealis
Pyractomena dispersa ż

1

LC

LC

LC
DD*

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡2 ż Species of Conservation Concern3 ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm

28

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

Fl

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†

Presumed Yes — US—(AZ?), CA?, (NM?), TX†

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation29

Checklist of Firefly Species in the US and Canada… (continued)
*

LIST

ŝ

s Þ

les

t
igh

ism

em

End

SPECIES

Taxonomic authority

Common Name(s)RED

Pyractomena linearis

LeConte, 1852

Marsh gray

DD

Flash

No

— US—MA, ME?, MI?, MN?, NH?, NY?, PA?, WI? | CAN—AB?, MB, ON, QC?

Pyractomena lucifera żMelsheimer, 1845

Marsh imp

DD*

Flash

No

— US—AL, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA, WI | CAN—ON, QC

Pyractomena marginalis ż
Pyractomena palustrisGreen, 1957

Marginal firefly

DD*

Flash

No

— US—AL?, AR?, CT?, DC?, GA?, IL?, MA?, MD?, ME?, NC?, NH?, NJ?, NY?, OH, OK?, PA, SC?, TN, TX, VA?

Green, 1957

Marsh diver

DD

Flash

No

— US—(AL?), AR?, DC?, MD?, (MO?), MS?, TN?, VA?

Pyractomena punctiventris

LeConte, 1878

Texas hookers

LC

Flash

No

— US—TX

Pyractomena similis

Green, 1957

Similar firefly

DD

Flash

No

— US—AL?, MD?, MS?, SC?, VA?

Pyractomena sinuata żGreen, 1957

Notched firefly

DD*

Flash

No

— US—CT, (IL?), (KS?), (MN?), ND, NE, (NH?), (PA?), (SD?), VT, (WI?) | (CAN?—MB?)

Pyractomena vexillaria ż
Pyropyga decipiens

Gorham, 1881

Amber comet firefly

EN

Flash

No

— {US}—{TX}

Harris, 1836

Sneaky elf

LC

Day

No

— US—CT, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, MO, NE, NJ, NY, OH, PA, VT, WI | CAN—NB, ON, QC, PE

Pyropyga minuta

LeConte, 1852

Flower elf

LC

Day

No

— US—CO, FL, GA, LA, NM, OK, TN, TX

Pyropyga modesta

Green, 1961

Modest elf

DD

Day

No

— US—AZ, MO, NM, OK, TX

Pyropyga nigricans

Say, 1823

Black-bordered elf

LC

Day

Sometimes

Tenaspis angularis

Gorham, 1880

Tropic traveler; angeled tenaspis firefly

DD

Day

1

KEY (see Notes) *RED LIST Ranking‡2 ż Species of Conservation Concern3 ŝ Group—Daytime dark, Flashing, Glow-worm

Fl

No
†

DOCUMENTED RANGE & STATUS BY US STATE & CAN PROVINCE†— US—AZ, CA, CO, ID, IN, KY, ME, MI, MT, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, TX, UT, VA, WA | CAN—AB, BC, MB, ON, QC, (SK?)— US—FL, LA, MO, TX

RANGE & STATUS4—Extant, Presence uncertain?, (Possibly extant?), {Possibly extinct}, [Not assessed], Species of Conservation Concern

NOTES:
1. COMMON NAMES—Wherever possible, the known common names for each species have been included in this list (e.g., those listed by Faust 2017,
Lloyd 2018, IUCN 2021). When a species had no documented common name, the scientific name was translated.
2. RED LIST Ranking—Critically Endangered ( CR ), Endangered ( EN ), Vulnerable ( VU ), Near Threatened ( NT ), Least Concern ( LC ), Data Deficient( DD ). Note: DD* species are species of conservation concern (see #3 below). See Understanding IUCN Red List Rankings on page 7 for more
information.
3. Species of Conservation Concern—CR, EN, VU, NT, and DD* species suspected to be of high conservation concern and thus recommended forstate-level protection, such as inclusion on a state's Species of Greatest Conservation Need lists or targeted for specific conservation programs. See
Appendix C on page 53 for more information.
4. RANGE & STATUS—Extant

Species recorded since 2000

Presence uncertain?

Species recorded prior to 2000

(Possibly extant?)

No known records but habitat or locality is appropriate and species may occur here

{Possibly extinct}

Species has not been seen in many years despite comprehensive survey efforts[Not assessed]

Species not yet assessed for the Red List so distribution is considered tentative

Species of Conservation Concern Species suspected to be of high conservation concern. See #3.

30

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation31

Appendix

B

Bicellonycha wickershamorum
Southwest Spring FireflyThreatened & Near Threatened Species Profiles
ź CAUTION
All of these species profiles were compiled based on information gathered from the IUCN Red List
assessments (IUCN 2021) and augmented with new information that has become available since their
publication. Full Red List assessments (including range maps) are available at www.iucnredlist.org/.

Conservation Status
IUCN—Red List ranking (see See Understanding IUCN Red List Rankings on page 7 for more
information).
NS—NatureServe Global (G), National (N), and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Rank:
GX | NX | SX
GH | NH | SH
G1 | N1 | S1
G2 | N2 | S2
G3 | N3 | S3
G4 | N4 | S4
G5 | N5 | S5
GNA | NNA | SNA

Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery
Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery
At very high risk of extinction or collapse
At high risk of extinction or collapse
At moderate risk of extinction or collapse
At fairly low risk of extinction or collapse
At very low risk or extinction or collapse
A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not asuitable target for conservation activities
GNR | NNR | SNR
Global rank not yet assessed
GU | NU | SU
Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting
information about status or trends
G#G# | N#N# | S#S# Numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3, G1G3) is used to indicate uncertainty about the exact statusof a taxon or ecosystem type

SGCN—Species of Greatest Conservation Need, legal designation by state
US ESA—Species' legal status under the US Endangered Species Act

Male Size Ranges

Figure 18—The species’ habitat along the Cienegas Creek in the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area [above]; an adult southwest spring firefly[below]. (Photos: Patrick Alexander / flickr [above]; Doug Danforth / BugGuide [below].)

Conservation Status» IUCN: VU» NS: G2G3, SNR (AZ)

Distribution» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

USA—Arizona

Description
The southwest spring firefly is found in montane desert habitats of Arizona, including wet
and marshy areas in the Madrean Sky Islands and surrounding foothills and stream canyons.
The main threats to this species are climate change and habitat loss and degradation due to cattle
grazing and modification for agriculture and pasturing. However, light pollution is also of concern.
Adults are active from early June to late July, before summer monsoons, and communicate using a green
flash-answer routine. See subspecies below for more information.

9–10 mm

The documented size range for males of each species has been provided in the profiles as follows:
9–10 mmWith the smallest size in grey () superimposed over the largest size in green (printed at 100% scale, the bars match the lengths provided.

). When32

AgricultureCropsystems
Livestock& pasture

Gila Southwest Spring Firefly
Conservation Status

Habitat Threats
Pollution
Excesslight
Energy &miningPesticides& run-offBicellonycha wickershamorum ssp. piceum

Habitat Loss, Degradation, Fragmentation
HabitatCommercial &lossdevelopment
Trampling
Urban & residential/ crushingdevelopment
Invasive
Water quality
species

Climate & Severe Weather
ClimateSevere storms
change& flooding
RisingDroughttemperatures
Sea levelriseState of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada» IUCN: EN» NS: G2G3T1T2, SNR (AZ)

Distribution» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

USA—Arizona

Description
This subspecies has only been reported from its type locality near Morenci, AZ. Because of this, not much is known about its

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation33

habitat associations. However, like its parent species, B.
wickershamorum, it is likely a riparian desert specialist. The
type locality where this subspecies has been documented is aseepage area within a floodplain of a permanent river.

Lucidota luteicollis

Florida Scrub Dark Firefly

The Gila southwest spring firefly is threatened by habitat
degradation and loss due to mining, trampling by cattle,
and modification for pasturing and agriculture, in addition
to flooding and light pollution. Surveys throughout the areafrom where it has been reported are needed to determine if
the species remains extant, and to get a better understandingof this subspecies’ distribution.

ź CAUTION

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults are active from dusk to dark from June to July. The
flash behavior of this subspecies is not known because too
few individuals have been observed.

Figure 19—Seep habitat along Eagle Creek, close to the type locality. The
actual type locality for this species is likely lost. (Photo: Anna Walker) No
photos of this subspecies are available.

Bicellonycha wickershamorum ssp. wickershamorum
Southwest Spring Firefly
Conservation Status» IUCN: VU» NS: GG3T2T3, SNR (AZ)

9–10 mmFigure 21—An example of the species' longleaf pine habitat [above]; adult male Florida scrub dark firefly [middle]; male and female aboveground [bottom].
(Photos: Leo Miranda, USFWS / Flickr [above]; Brandon Woo / BugGuide [middle]; James E. Lloyd / University of Florida [bottom].)

Distribution» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

Conservation Status

USA—Arizona» IUCN: VU» NS: G1G2, SNR (FL)

Description

Distribution» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

This subspecies is the more widespread of the two subspecies
and therefore is also referred to as the southwest spring firefly.
As suggested in the species level account, it can be found inmontane desert habitats in Arizona at elevations ranging
from 4,000–6,000 feet. This includes habitats in the Madrean
Sky Islands and surrounding foothills and stream canyons,
where it is associated with marsh areas and other ephemeral
habitats along permanent streams, including seeps and areas
with standing water.

Description

The main threats to this species are climate change and habitat
loss and degradation due to cattle grazing and modification
for agriculture and pasturing. However, light pollution is alsoof concern.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

USA—Florida

The Florida scrub dark firefly is a habitat specialist associated with very dry habitats in Florida’s
scrub, sandhill, and longleaf pine savannah habitats. It appears to be confined to upland ridges.
The activity period of this diurnal species is not well known. Flightless adult females, which aresubterranean, likely attract males by releasing pheromones. Females may avoid coming abovegroundeven to mate; opting instead to mate with males through the sand.

8 mmThreats to this species include habitat loss and degradation, climate change and associated drought, andtrampling of flightless females.

Figure 20—The southwest spring firefly [top] has a complicated flash
pattern that has yet to be described [bottom]. (Photos: Scott Cylwik.)Flash Pattern & Activity Period

This is a daytime dark firefly species that uses phermones to find mates. Adults are active inJuly and August. Adult males are technically luminescent, but do not seem to use their lights
for mating.

Adult males pronounce one flash per interval, but the duration of the flash and the timing between intervals have not beenrecorded. A diagnostic feature of this subspecies is the way it flashes higher and higher above ground as the sun sets. In southern
Arizona, this subspecies and Photinus knulli are the only known flashers.

34

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

35

Micronaspis floridana

Photinus acuminatus

Florida Intertidal Firefly

Pointy-Lobed Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 22—One of the species' localities in Cedar Key, Florida [above]; Micronaspis floridana adult [below]. (Photos: Rain0975 / Flickr [above]; Drew Fulton[below].)

Figure 23—Type locality habitat documented with the first observations of the species on Mount Pisgah in North Carolina [above]; adult male observed
on a leaf. (Photos: Jim Liestman / Flickr [above]; James E. Lloyd / University of Florida [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status

Distribution

USA—Florida; Bahamas» IUCN: EN» SGCN: South Carolina» NS: G1, SNA (AL), SNR (FL, » US ESA: Not listed
GA, NC, OH, SC), SU (MS)USA—Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Ohio, South
Carolina» IUCN: EN» NS: G1G2; S1S3 (FL)

» SGCN: Florida» US ESA: Not listed

Description
True to its name, the Florida intertidal firefly inhabits the intertidal zone of salt marshes, mudflats,and mangroves in coastal areas. It occurs along the Florida coast and on some northern islands of
the Bahamas. Adults can be active year-round, but particularly from March through May.
8–12 mmThis species is threatened by coastal development, light pollution, agricultural activities, and pesticides.
Mangroves are among the most endangered coastal habitats in Florida, and many have already been decimated,
potentially leading to the decline of this species. Sea-level rise and increasing frequency and severity ofhurricanes and other storms may also pose a threat. Several populations in Florida now appear to be locally extinct.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

ß
Þ

36

1

2

3

4

The pointy-lobed firefly is a habitat specialist found in bog and marsh habitats. This species has awide range but appears to have been extirpated from some areas. It has been reported from Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina, although it may be morewidespread but overlooked. Populations in Florida and South Carolina may be extinct.

7–8 mmHabitat loss and light pollution are the leading threats to this species.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

Adults may be found year-round but peak activity is in March–May with displays starting 40–90 minutes after sunset. Males
emit short single or bimodal yellowish-green flashes every couple of seconds; females respond with prolonged, modulated glowflashes lasting up to a minute.
0

Description

5

Adults are active for a short period around dusk in June and July. This species has a generic flash pattern with males emittingbright yellow, fast flashes every two seconds. Females respond with their own flashes. Unlike most firefly species, displaying males
do not congregate together but instead scatter out across a large area. Because they often co-occur with other firefly species, thiscan make it difficult to distinguish them.

6 Seconds0ȉ Single flash over half a second, repeated every 1 or 2 seconds

1

2

3

4

5

6 Seconds

ȉ Double flash over half a second, repeated every 1 or 2 secondsßȉ Short single flash repeated every 2 seconds

ȉ Response glow for up to a minuteÞȉ Short response flash following each male flash

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

37

Photinus dimissus

Photinus knulli

Two-Step Flasher Firefly

Southwest Synchronous Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 24—The two-step flasher firefly (Photinus dimissus) [below] is now known from only a few localities in Texas and Oklahoma, including GuadalupeRiver State Park in Texas [above]. (Photos: Mike Quinn / BugGuide [below]; Amber Lujan (amboo213) / Flickr [above].)

Figure 25—Type habitat from the area species was first documented in Peña Blanca Canyon, Arizona [above]; live male specimen. (Photos: Alan Schmierer/ Flickr [above]; Arthur V. Evans [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status» IUCN: NT» SGCN: None
» NS: G3, SNA (OK), SNR » US ESA: Not listed(TX)

USA—Texas, Oklahoma» IUCN: VU (tentative,
unpublished)» NS: G2G3; SNR (AZ)

Description

5–7 mmThreats to this species include habitat disturbance and loss, particularly due to growing residential
development, trampling of flightless adult females, light pollution, and loss and degradation of critical water
resources.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

USA—Arizona; MEX—
Sonora2

3

4

The Southwest synchronous firefly is found primarily in southeastern Arizona and northern
Sonora, Mexico. Males of this species congregate to put on unusual synchronous flash displays
from lek arenas. These leks, where larvae and adult females also tend to gather, are typically foundnear permanently wet areas of xeric habitats like desert streams.

5–8 mmBecause of its congregating behavior, this synchronous firefly is especially vulnerable
to extinction due to human-caused habitat modification and drought. It has alreadybeen extirpated from at least one locality.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

As its common name suggests, males of this species produce a twinkling yellow flash that appears bimodal about once a second;females respond at a quick fraction of a second delay.
1» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

Description

The two-step flasher firefly (Photinus dimissus) was historically found in isolated patches along
riparian corridors throughout southern Oklahoma and central Texas. Recent surveys for the
species have identified only a few extant localities, primarily within protected natural areas or on
private property. It is associated with undisturbed grasslands along waterways.

0

Distribution

5

Adults are active in July and August, 35–120 minutes after sunset. The flash displays
are composed of triplet yellow flashes emitted about every six seconds.

6 Seconds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Seconds

Scott Cylwik

ßȉ Single flash repeated once per secondßȉ Three (to rarely six) flashes over one second, repeated at six second intervals

Þȉ Response flash following each male flashÞȉ Female response is extremely varied, ranging from short pulses to long, continuous glows

38

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

39

Photuris bethaniensis (continued)

Photuris bethaniensis
Bethany Beach Firefly

Bethany Beach Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 26—Bethany Beach firefly freshwater interdunal swale habitat along the Atlantic coastline [above]; a pinned specimen [middle]; firefly collectedduring a survey. (Photos: Emily May [above]; Christopher M. Heckscher [middle]; Kayt Jonsson, USFWS / flickr [bottom].)

Figure 27—Invasive plants taking over sites like this one surveyed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife may becontributing to the species' decline [above];. (Photo: Kayt Jonsson, USFWS / flickr.)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Flash Pattern & Activity Period» IUCN: CR» US ESA: Under review for» NS: G1; S1 (DE), SNA (MD)listing (USFWS 2021)» SGCN: Delaware (DE)» DE ESA: Endangered

USA—Delaware, Maryland

Adults of this species are active after dark from late June to July or August, when males emit a distinctive bright green double flash
about every five seconds.
0

Description
The Bethany Beach firefly is a habitat specialist primarily associated with threatened freshwaterinterdunal wetlands that occur along a 20-mile stretch of Delaware’s Atlantic coast, althoughadditional populations are now documented in Maryland. These wetland habitats form in barrier
beach systems in the shallow depressions found between sand dunes. While brackish swales can befound all along the east coast, freshwater swales are less common. These swales are characterized bysaturated soils that are seasonally inundated by freshwater from aquifers and recharged with rainfall.
Organic matter that builds up in the swales provides habitat for Bethany Beach firefly larvae, whichhunt along the soil surface and pupate in chambers just under the soil surface or under logs.

9–10.75 mm

1

2

3

4

5

6 Seconds

ßȉ Long double-flash over two seconds, repeated at five second intervals

Þȉ Female response unknown** Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

Currently, the most significant threat to this species is habitat loss and fragmentation due tocoastal development. Other threats include decreased water quality, recreational activities andrelated infrastructure, habitat fragmentation, light pollution, pesticides, and climate changeinduced sea-level rise, increased incidence of severe storms, and increased temperatures andphenological shifts (changes in the timing of a species’ life cycle events). Loss of larval preyspecies, invasive plants such as the common reed (Phragmites australis), and disease or predation
may be impacting the Bethany Beach firefly as well.
(continued on next page)

40

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

41

Photuris cinctipennis

Photuris flavicollis

Belted Firefly

Sky Island Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 28—This species has been found in moist lowland areas of hardwood forests such as this wooded riparian area in Cedarville State Forest, Maryland[above]; belted firefly male [below]. (Photos: F. Delventhal / Flickr [above]; James E. Lloyd / University of Florida [below].)

Figure 29—The Davis Mountains in Texas are one of the documented mountain ranges where sky island fireflies are found [above]; pinned Photuris
flavicollis specimen [below]. (Photo: Cherie King / flickr [above]; Mike Quinn / BugGuide [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status

USA—Delaware, Maryland» IUCN: VU» NS: G1G3; SH (NM), SNR(TX)» IUCN: EN» NS: G1G2; S4 (DE), SNR(MD)» SGCN: Delaware» US ESA: Not listed

Description

11–12 mmThis species is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to urban development and sea-level rise.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults are active after dark in June and July and give off single yellow-green flashes at uncertain intervals.
1» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

USA—Texas, New Mexico

Description

The belted firefly has a very small range in Maryland and Delaware, and it appears to be quite rare.
Despite extensive survey efforts and examination of museum collections, it has been documented
from only five counties. The belted firefly is found in moist lowland areas in hardwood forests andisolated freshwater forested ephemeral wetlands of the mid-Atlantic coast.

0Distribution

2

3

4

5

6 Seconds

ßȉ Very brief single flash repeated every four secondsÞȉ Female response unknown*

The sky island firefly, so named for the unique place in Texas that harbors this species, isassociated with spring complexes in remote mountainous areas of western Texas. It has been
documented in the Davis Mountains and surrounding mountain ranges. Over a hundred years ago,
it was documented in Pecos, New Mexico, as well, so it may be more widespread then currently known.

8.4–11.5 mm

The major threat to this species is habitat disturbance due to development for oil and gas extraction,light pollution, and drought. Surveys are needed to better understand this species’ distribution.
Its distinctive morphology and long breeding season may help with species ID, which is notoriously difficult for Photuris species.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults of this species are active from June to early August. Although the flash pattern has not been observed, males probably emit
a continuous series of very short greenish-yellow flashes at least once a second, similar to other Photuris spp.

* Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

42

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

43

Photuris forresti

Photuris mysticalampas

Loopy Five Firefly

Mysterious Lantern Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 30—This marsh in Tennessee is one of three known sites where the loopy five firefly is found [above]; adult Photuris forresti [middle]; the characteristic
five-spot flash pattern [below]. (Photos: Lynn Faust [above, middle]; Radim Schreiber [below].)

Figure 31—An example of its Atlantic white cedar swamp habitat in Delaware [above]; pinned specimen. (Photos: Radim Schreiber [above]; Christopher
M. Heckscher [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status» IUCN: VU (tentative,» SGCN: None
unpublished)» US ESA: Not listed» NS: G1; SNR (GA, SC, TN)

USA—Georgia, South
Carolina, Tennessee» IUCN: EN» NS: G1G2; SNR (DE)

11–12 mm

Description
The loopy five firefly occurs in marsh habitats and has thus far been documented at only threesites despite years of searching—in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia. The original SC
type locality has been destroyed, but the species was found at a site nearby.
Habitat loss is thus the main threat to this species; light pollution is also a threat. Habitat protection
and increased survey efforts are critically needed to protect this firefly.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

Distribution» SGCN: Delaware» US ESA: Not listed

USA—Delaware

Description
The mysterious lantern firefly is a habitat specialist associated with high-quality forested
peatland floodplains, in areas where Atlantic white cedar is often codominant.
The primary threats to this species are habitat loss and degradation due to sea-level rise.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

9–11 mm

Adults are active 30–40 minutes after sunset to past midnight from mid-June to late July and give off
single yellowish-green flashes of medium luminosity typically every three to seven seconds.

Adults are active from one hour after sunset until midnight in May and June. This species emits aseries of erratic greenish-yellow pulses and prolonged flash trains in a five-spot looping pattern.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Seconds
ȉ Short or long single flash repeated every three seconds in warmer weather

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Secondsßßȉ Variable flash pattern, most common form is five or six rapid flashes leading into a train. Due to therapid speed of the flashes, some may appear as a single long, modulated flash. See above. (Photo by.)Þ

ȉ Female response unknown*Þ* Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

44ȉ Short or long single flash repeated less frequently in cooler weather, at up
to seven-second intervals

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canadaȉ Female response unknown** Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

45

Photuris pensylvanica

Photuris pyralomima

Dot-Dash Firefly, Pennsylvania Firefly

Pyralis-Mimicking Photuris Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 32—Ideal habitat for the dot-dash firefly in Allegheny National Forest, where the species has been recorded in the past [above]; illustration of theoften-misidentified species. (Photo: Jim Mullhaupt / Flickr [above]; Jim White [below].)

Figure 33—This Photuris species can be found in old hayfields, overgrown pastures, or wet meadows, like the one pictured here in Delaware [above];(Photo: TCDavis / Flickr.) There are no known photos or illustrations of this species.

Conservation Status

Conservation Status

Distribution» IUCN: EN» SGCN: Delaware» NS: G1?; S1S3 (DE), SH (NY) » US ESA: Not listed

USA—Delaware, New York(possibly extinct)

Distribution» IUCN: VU» SGCN: Delaware» US ESA: Not listed» NS: G3?; S1S2 (DE), SNA
USA—Delaware, Maryland,(NY, WV), SNR (DC, MD, New Jersey, New York,NJ, PA, RI), SU (VT)Pennsylvania

Description

Description
The dot-dash firefly is a habitat specialist associated with high quality tidal and non-tidal
freshwater wetlands, such as shrub and forest acidic seepage swamps, emergent marshes, fens,
fresh-water tide marshes, and floodplains.

This rare firefly is found in open habitats including moist meadows, hayfields, and fields with
dense scrub-shrub vegetation, such as those that have been left to fallow.
8–11 mm

The main threat to this species is habitat degradation due to sea-level rise, development, and invasionof the non-native plant, common reed (Phragmites australis), which can overtake this species’ wetland
habitats and make them uninhabitable for the firefly.

Adults are active in June and July an hour after sunset until midnight. Males emit a characteristic greenish dot-dash flash pattern,comprised of a quick flash followed by a long flash that lasts up to three seconds.
1

2

3

4

13–14 mm

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults are active in June after dark. Males emit a single, yellowish, half-second flash-glow every six seconds to attract females.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

0

Habitat loss and light pollution are the greatest threats to this species. If you own land with old fieldhabitat within the range of this firefly, consider protecting and maintaining it by not mowing it, ormowing only once every one to two years.

5

0

ß

ȉ The dot-dash flash is repeated at seven- to eight-second intervals

Þȉ Female response unknown*

2

3

4

ß
Þ

6 Seconds

1

5

6 Seconds
ȉ Half-second flash repeated at six-second intervals (same as Photinus pyralis)?

ȉ Suspected female response pattern based on Photinus pyralis* Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

46

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

47

Photuris salina

Photuris walldoxeyi

Salt Marsh Firefly

Cypress Firefly, Wall Doxey's Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 34—Woodland Beach Wildlife Management Area in Kent County, Delaware, one of the few known locations where the species is still found[above]; adult P. salina perched on a blade of grass [below]. (Photos: Lee Cannon / flickr [above]; Radim Schreiber [below].)

Figure 35—An example of this species' cypress swamp habitat in Mississippi [above]; a pinned specimen [below]. (Photos: Visit Mississippi / Flickr [above];
Luiz Silveira [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status» IUCN: NT» SGCN: Delaware» NS: G3; S3 (DE), SNA (VA), » US ESA: Not listed
SNR (MD, NJ)

USA—Delaware, Maryland,
New Jersey, Virginia» IUCN: VU» NS: G2G3; SNR (IL, MS,TN), SU (IN)

Description

The primary threat to this species is habitat loss and degradation due to sea-level rise and storm surge
associated with climate change, pesticide use, urban development, and the spread of the invasive plant,
common reed (Phragmites australis), which can overtake this species’ marshy habitat and make it
uninhabitable for fireflies. Some of the localities in Delaware may be extirpated due to these threats.

USA—Illinois, Indiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee

As its name suggests, the cypress firefly is a habitat specialist associated with cypress swamps,
although it is also found in tupelo gum swamps.
11 mm

Flash Pattern & Activity Period

The main threats to this species are habitat loss and degradation and light pollution.

2

3

4

5

11.9–12.6 mm

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults are active mid-May to mid-June after dark (45 minutes after sunset). This species has a unique courtship flash patternconsisting of four to nine bright pulsing green-yellow flashes, followed by a prolonged one-second glow.

Adults are active May–July after dark. Males emit a single yellowish flash about once per second, sometimes in near synchrony
with conspecific males, while flying just above the vegetation that lines the salt marshes in which they fly.
1

» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

Description

The salt marsh firefly is restricted to tidal marsh habitats along the mid-Atlantic coast from New
Jersey to Virginia.

0Distribution

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Secondsßȉ Highly complex and variable with four to nine flashes followed by a one-second "train"that is sometimes immediately followed by another double-flash + one-second train
ȉ Female response is erratic, consisting of quick single, double, or triple flashes*

6 Seconds

ßȉ Short single flash repeated once per secondÞÞȉ Female response unknown** Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

* Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

48

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

49

Pleotomodes needhami

Pyractomena ecostata

Ant-Loving Scrub FireflyKeel-Necked Firefly

ź CAUTIONź CAUTION

Figure 36—Pine scrub habitat in Florida [above]; close-up of two ant-loving pine scrub firefly larvae outside an ant nest [below]. (Photos: Judy Gallagher/ Flickr [above]; James E. Lloyd / University of Florida [below]

Figure 37—Keel-necked firefly tidal marsh habitat [above]; an adult male Pyractomena ecostata [below]. (Photos: Andy Atzert / Flickr [above]; Oliver Keller/ BugGuide [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution

Conservation Status

Distribution

USA—Florida» IUCN: EN» SGCN: Delaware» NS: G3; SNR (AL, DE, FL, NJ) » US ESA: Not listed

USA—Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, New Jersey» IUCN: EN (tentative,
unpublished)» NS: G1G2; S1S2 (FL)

» SGCN: Florida» US ESA: Not listed

Description

Description
The ant-loving scrub firefly is an unusual, range-restricted species found in association with ants
in xeric pine and oak scrub forests along the Mid-Florida Ridge region. Larvae, pupae, and adults
of both sexes have been found within ant nests. It is unclear how these fireflies evade detection by
the ants, if their dispersal is assisted by them, or if they are true ant obligates. Because of their primarily
subterranean nature, very little is known about this species. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, it has not been
documented from very many localities.

This firefly has a disjunct distribution, with populations in Alabama, Florida, Delaware, andNew Jersey. It is a habitat specialist associated with brackish tidal marshes and wet pastures.
7 mm

Threats to this species include habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural and residential development as well as light
pollution from nearby towns.

Flightless adult females emerge from ant colonies after dark in mid-April, emitting a light for up to an hour to attract glowing
males. Note: flash color has not been documented.
1

2

3

4

5

Adults are active after dark from April through September (depending on the latitude). Males emitbright, yellow, explosive courtship signals, about a second in duration, every eight seconds or so.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Seconds

ßȉ One-second flashes repeated at eight-second intervals

Þȉ Female response unknown** Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

6 Seconds

ßȉ Males glow in response to female signaling, continuing to glow until after matingÞȉ Females will glow for up to one hour or until after mating50

11.5–16 mm

Flash Pattern & Activity Period0Flash Pattern & Activity Period

0

Habitat loss and degradation due to sea-level rise, development, the spread of invasive plants, andartificial light at night are the main threats to this species.

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

51

Appendix

Pyractomena vexillaria
Amber Comet Firefly

ź CAUTION

C

Species of Conservation Concern by US State andCanadian ProvinceThis reference guide, arranged by state and province, includes threatened species (Critically Endangered[5], Endangered [4], and Vulnerable [3]), Near Threatened (2) species, and Data Deficient (0)species that are docunented in the listed state or province and are suspected to be of high conservation
concern. Red List categories are provided. The purpose of this list is to enable wildlife agencies, land
managers, and conservationists to prioritize species for state- or province-level conservation efforts,
protection, and legislation. Users should keep in mind that distribution lists are dynamic, constantly
evolving as new information is uncovered.

Figure 38—This species’ habitat along the Devil’s River in Val Verde County, Texas [above]; a pinned specimen [bottom]. (Photos: Ben Pfeiffer [above]; Mike
Quinn / BugGuide [below].)

Conservation Status

Distribution» IUCN: EN (tentative,
unpublished)» NS: G1; SNR (TX)

» SGCN: None
» US ESA: Not listed

USA—Texas; MEX—Tabasco
9.6–13 mm

Description
The amber comet firefly has been reported from several different habitat types: over a marsh in
Tabasco, Mexico; in mixed semi-arid cenizo and guajillo brushland with limestone river basinsin Texas; and in the Texas Hill Country where the dominant vegetation is oak and cedar brush. This
species has not been found in Texas since 1940, despite concerted survey effort, and much of the known
range of this species in Mexico has been converted to sugarcane plantations and cattle pasture. Surveys are critically needed
to determine if the species remains extant.
Threats to this species are not well documented but likely include light pollution and habitat degradation due to agricultural andurban development.

Flash Pattern & Activity Period
Adults are active after dark from May–August. This species displays an initial explosive amber flash, followed by quick one
second upward-trailing flashes.
0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Secondsßȉ Bright burst followed by a trailing flash at one-second intervals

Þȉ Female response unknown** Due to the aggressive mimicry utilized by some “femme fatale” firefly species—some of which have been documented using multiple flash-pattern responses—it has been difficult todetermine which flash-patterns are used to attract mates or, alternately, to lure in unsuspecting prey males from other firefly species.

52

For a full list of species and their distributions, regardless of Red List category, see Appendix A. Note: if
a state or province is not listed, then there are no threatened species known from that state/province atthis time.

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

United States
Alabama
0 Pyractomena angustata
0 Pyractomena dispersa
4 Pyractomena ecostata
0 Pyractomena floridana
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Arizona
3 Bicellonycha wickershamorum
4 Bicellonycha w. ssp. piceum
3 Bicellonycha w. ssp. wickershamorum
0 Ellychnia bivulnerus
0 Microphotus fragilis
0 Paraphausis eximius
3 Photinus knulli
0 Prolutacea pulsator
0 Pyractomena dispersa

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

53

Arkansas

Georgia

0 Photinus granulatus
0 Photinus punctulatus
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena marginalis

4 Photinus acuminatus
0 Photinus collustrans
4 Photuris forresti
0 Pyractomena angustata
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Colorado
0 Pyractomena dispersa

Connecticut

Idaho

0 Photuris potomaca
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena marginalis
0 Pyractomena sinuata

0 Pyractomena dispersa

Illinois
0 Photinus punctulatus
3 Photuris walldoxeyi
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Delaware
5Photuris bethaniensis
4 Photuris cinctipennis
4 Photuris mysticalampas
3 Photuris pensylvanica
4 Photuris pyralomima
2 Photuris salina
0 Pyractomena dispersa
4 Pyractomena ecostata
0 Pyractomena lucifera

Maryland5Photuris bethaniensis
4 Photuris cinctipennis
3 Photuris pensylvanica
0 Photuris potomaca
2 Photuris salina
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Massachusetts
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Michigan
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera

Indiana
3 Photuris walldoxeyi
0 Pyractomena lucifera

Iowa
0 Photinus punctulatus

KansasFlorida0 Photinus granulatus
0 Photinus punctulatus

3 Lucidota luteicollis
4 Micronaspis floridana
4 Photinus acuminatus
0 Photinus collustrans0 Photuris congener
4 Pleotomodes needhami
0 Pyractomena angustata
0 Pyractomena barberi
4 Pyractomena ecostata
0 Pyractomena floridana
0 Pyractomena lucifera

Kentucky
0 Photuris potomaca
0 Pyractomena dispersa

Louisiana
0 Pyractomena lucifera

Maine
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena marginalis

54

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

55

Minnesota

North Carolina

0 Photuris caerulescens
0 Pyractomena lucifera

4 Photinus acuminatus
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Mississippi

North Dakota

4 Photinus acuminatus
3 Photuris walldoxeyi
0 Pyractomena angustata
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena floridana
0 Pyractomena lucifera

0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena sinuata

Ohio
4 Photinus acuminatus
0 Photuris potomaca
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Missouri
0 Photinus punctulatus
0 Pyractomena dispersa

Nebraska

Oklahoma

0 Pyractomena sinuata

4 Photuris forresti
3 Photuris walldoxeyi
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Texas
2 Photinus dimissus
0 Photinus granulatus
0 Photinus immaculatus
0 Photinus punctulatus
3 Photuris flavicollis
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis
4 Pyractomena vexillaria

Utah
0 Pyractomena dispersa

2 Photinus dimissus
0 Photinus granulatus
0 Photinus punctulatus
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

New Hampshire
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena marginalis

New Jersey
3 Photuris pensylvanica
2 Photuris salina
0 Pyractomena dispersa
4 Pyractomena ecostata
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Pennsylvania
3 Photuris pensylvanica
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

New Mexico

South Carolina

3 Photuris flavicollis

4 Photuris forresti
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

New York
3 Photuris pensylvanica
4 Photuris pyralomima
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

56

Tennessee

South Dakota
0 Pyractomena lucifera

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

57

Vermont
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena sinuata

Virginia
0 Photuris potomaca
0 Pyractomena dispersa
0 Pyractomena lucifera
0 Pyractomena marginalis

Washington
0 Pyractomena dispersa

West Virginia
0 Photuris potomaca

Wisconsin
0 Photuris aurolucens
0 Photuris caerulescens
0 Pyractomena lucifera

CanadaAlberta
0 Pyractomena dispersa

Manitoba
0 Pyractomena dispersa

Ontario0 Pyractomena lucifera

Quebec0 Pyractomena lucifera

Saskatchewan
0 Pyractomena dispersa

58

State of the Fireflies of the United States and Canada

The Xerces® Society is a trusted source for science-based information and advice. We workwith people from all walks of life to promote invertebrate conservation. Our team draws
together experts in habitat restoration, entomology, plant ecology, and conservation
biology with a single passion: protecting the life that sustains us.

Tel (855) 232-6639 • xerces.org

The Xerces Society is an equal opportunity employer and provider. © 2021 by The Xerces®
Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Xerces® is a trademark registered in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office.

21-021_02